All in the Name of Development

Development is a tricky word. For the past few years, I have been trying to understand what it really means and who defines development, and what the measures of development are.

As a part of one of my projects, I went to a village in Northern India. It was a chance visit, and it was a hilly village and had a very difficult access route, with no roads and on a hill. I had my own agenda of trying to see the potential of microcredit in the state, and though this village was not on my planned schedule, I thought I might as well check out the potential of this village now that I was already there.

It was a small village of about 100 households. It was not yet connected to electricity; there was no road that connected the village to the outside world, no school (the children went to school in another village about 15 kilometers away). In short, the village was still untouched of development. Yet, they seemed a happy lot. They produced most of what they needed in the village itself, and shared it amongst themselves. I cannot call it a barter economy, as it was more of people sharing things rather than exchanging them. For example, a family which had a cow would consume milk, and whatever was leftover, it would give it away to anyone who needed it, not necessarily exchange it for something. If this family needed vegetables, they could get it from someone who had cultivated vegetables and had an excess, and that person need not have been the one who the previous family had shared its milk with. There were people who worked in the cities and some also in the Indian army, so people had the money to buy things they needed from outside the village. I hardly saw anyone using any luxury item in the village; most of the things were either the basic necessities, or those of traditional value.

I realized that the village was not developed. I knew it had immense potential as a market for microcredit and other developmental activities. I knew these people could be connected to the mainstream; they had quite a few income generation activities and could earn better money for themselves. Only if they started selling the excess produce that they had rather than just giving it away. Then it struck me. What does development actually mean? These people were happy the way they were. They were a community based on togetherness, trust, sharing and caring for each other. Were they not immensely developed already? Or bringing electricity to their lives, bringing them closer to the markets, making them earn more would mean development. What I realized was while I was uncomfortable without electricity, they were not, and they did not need it. While I felt they earned very less, it was something they had never felt, as they did not have many needs to speak of, they had enough for their bar necessities and that is what mattered to them. While I thought they could actually have a lot of fancy things if they were linked to the market, I also realized that it would create a demand and dissatisfaction when they will not be able to get those things. They were happy as they were without having too many demands. Again, development would mean them earning more by selling their produce rather than sharing it, would it not destroy the very fabric of the community based on trust and sharing. People would then be more commercialized and be unhappy, they would earn more but lose out on the brotherhood they shared.

I walked off, obviously happy to have seen such a community for myself but was also left confused as to what development actually means. Do these people need development? Or are they better left the way they are? What is more important? Being developed or being happy? Because I realized that happiness does not follow development always, neither is it imperative for development to precede happiness. So, what should be done with this village? I left it alone and did not make it a part of my report. I only hope that no one comes to this village and thrusts their brand of development on these simple people.